As the recovery continues. There's a bunch of stuff on this but they don't all warrant their own threads so here's a compendium of economic information.

The economy last year experienced a net-improvement of 2.17 million jobs (private sector gained 2.24), which is better than every single year of the Bush Presidency except one (2005).

The jobs report of the fourth quarter of 2012 has been revised upward, now saying we added 600,000+ jobs from October through December.

The GDP actually contracted 0.1% in that quarter, however. The first contraction in 13 quarters -- though revisions will probably change that to a slight expansion -- largely because of Hurricane Sandy and vast layoffs in the defense sector.

The initial estimate is that we added 157,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate actually jumped, however, from 7.8% to 7.9%. As the economy gets better, more people are entering the job market.

The government continues to be the main holder-backer of a faster recovery, as reduced government payrolls have weighed down employment figures.

The Institute for Supply Management said its index of Manufacturing activity grew to 53.1, according to the Institute for Supply Management, which is a big jump up.

The U.S. trade deficit shrank in December to its narrowest in nearly three years, suggesting the economy did much better in the fourth quarter than initially estimated.

The country's trade gap narrowed to $38.5 billion during the month, the Commerce Department said on Friday. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a deficit of $46 billion.

That suggests the U.S. government will revise upward its advance reading for fourth-quarter gross domestic product, which showed the economy contracted at a 0.1 percent annual rate in part because of a decline in inflation-adjusted exports.

The government had released its estimate for fourth-quarter GDP before the December trade data was available. That GDP report suggested the government was projecting a wider trade deficit in December.

Friday's data showed U.S. exports surged by $8.6 billion during the month, boosted by sales of industrial supplies, including a $1.2 billion increase of non-monetary gold. In a reflection of a boom in oil output driven by hydraulic fracturing technologies, petroleum exports rose by nearly $1 billion during the month to a record high level.

A fall in petroleum imports led overall purchases from abroad to decline $4.6 billion in December. For the entire year, the country's imports of crude oil fell to their lowest levels since 1997 in terms of volume.

For all of 2012, the U.S. trade gap fell by 3.5 percent to $540.4 billion. Running trade deficits means the country bleeds dollars, so trade is still a drag on the U.S. economy. But rising exports are helping it to be less of a drag than in prior years.

Exports last year rose 4.4 percent.

While the overall trade deficit shrank, it grew with China during the year. That will be sure to raise hackles from American manufacturers who want the United States to pressure the Asian giant more to strengthen its currency.

But even the figures on China had a silver lining. While U.S. imports last year from China increased to a record high, so did America's exports to the country. America's December trade deficit with China for goods, which was not seasonally adjusted, narrowed by $4.5 billion on a drop in imports.

The U.S. trade deficit increased with the European Union last year but America's surplus with Brazil rose.

1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

2. The Great Depression is not the only reference we have to look back on. The energy crises of the late '70s, the post-Civil War problems, and the Panic of 1837 come to mind.

3. That said, I think this has a pretty good case to be the "Second Worst", given if nothing else its longevity.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

5. I admit I haven't kept up on the "people leaving the work force" argument, but as it's almost exclusively championed by the super-far Obama-hatin' right, I suspect that it's them trying to find numbers to make it look like (or more like) Obama's recovery is a flop. This is hunch rather than deduction, but it smells a lot like that Unskewed Polls baloney they tried to convince everyone of a few months ago. If I'm wrong, please school me.

I'd say that's a fair variety of a first-hand source (BLS), a second-hand source (MSN Money), and a right-leaning (WSJ), left-leaning (WonkBlog), and a leftwing outlet (MaddowBlog). Later in the thread I've cited Calculated Risk and Reuters.

I know you aren't disagreeing with me in any way, I just figured that deserves a little expounding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 17.8% and 17.9%?

The unemployment rate (i.e. the U3 measurement) is now 7.9%, up from 7.8%.

The U6 measurement of unemployment, the one that rightwingers love now because it's always higher, includes the unemployed, those who've dropped out of the workforce, and the underemployed, and is just a hair above 14% and falling. And that's the highest unemployment measurement we have.

The U-3 rate inching up to 7.9% is almost certainly due to people entering the workforce, because as the OP stated, our economy gained 157,000 jobs in January.

1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

2. The Great Depression is not the only reference we have to look back on. The energy crises of the late '70s, the post-Civil War problems, and the Panic of 1837 come to mind.

3. That said, I think this has a pretty good case to be the "Second Worst", given if nothing else its longevity.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

5. I admit I haven't kept up on the "people leaving the work force" argument, but as it's almost exclusively championed by the super-far Obama-hatin' right, I suspect that it's them trying to find numbers to make it look like (or more like) Obama's recovery is a flop. This is hunch rather than deduction, but it smells a lot like that Unskewed Polls baloney they tried to convince everyone of a few months ago. If I'm wrong, please school me.

6. There is no number six. That's about it.

I didn't read all of this, but from what little I gagged down, I want my 10 seconds back. Pure garbage.

For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.

Just read his argument and it's garbage. There is no mysterious decline in the labor force participation rate. We know it is going to trend down for the foreseeable future due to boomers leaving the workforce.

This guy has zero understanding (or is intentially leaving it out) of how and why the BLS adjusts certain things.